United States District Court, D. New Jersey, Camden Vicinage
OPINION, [Dkt., 90]
RENÉE MARIE BUMB UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
MATTER comes before the Court upon the Motion to Dismiss
filed by defendants New Jersey Transit, Officer Joseph
Iannacone, and the New Jersey Transit Police Department
(collectively, the “Defendants”). For the reasons
set forth herein, the Motion is Granted, in part, and Denied,
in part. The procedural history of this case is protracted
and complicated, to say the least. It is accurately set forth
in Defendants' moving papers and set forth herein.
February 7, 2014, Plaintiff filed a civil complaint against
the Defendants, State Police, N.J. Transit, and Joseph
Iannacone in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division,
Atlantic County under docket number ATL-L-586-14. [Docket No.
1-3, at 2]. On April 8, 2014, Defendant N.J. Transit filed a
motion for a more definite statement pursuant to N.J. Ct. R.
4:6-4. [Docket No. 1-5, at 2].
19, 2014, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint against N.J.
Transit and Joseph Iannacone in the Superior Court of New
Jersey, Law Division, Atlantic County under docket number
ATL-L-586-14 alleging violations of N.J. Stat. Ann. §
2C:33-4, N.J. Stat. Ann. § 10:5-12, N.J. Stat. Ann.
§ 2C:12-1, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. [Docket No. 1-11,
at 2-3]. On May 28, 2014, Defendants N.J. Transit and
Iannacone filed a notice of removal removing this matter to
the United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey. [ Docket No. 1, at 1]. On June 18, 2014, Defendants
moved to dismiss Plaintiff's first amended complaint
pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). [Docket. No. 6, at 1-2].
February 11, 2015, this Court dismissed Counts I and II of
Plaintiff's first amended complaint, granted Plaintiff
leave to file a second amended complaint within twenty days,
and dismissed Defendants' motion to dismiss as moot.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). [Docket No. 12, at 1-3].
April 7, 2015, this Court closed this action due to
Plaintiff's failure to comply with L. Civ. R. 10.1(a).
[Docket. No. 15, at 1-2].
August 25, 2015, Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint.
[Docket. No. 18, at 1]. On September 4, 2015, Defendants N.J.
Transit and Iannacone filed an application for a clerk's
extension. [Docket. No. 20, at 1-2]. On September 8, 2015,
Defendants N.J. Transit and Iannacone's application was
granted, and this matter was re-opened. [Docket. No. 21, at
September 21, 2015, Defendants moved to dismiss
Plaintiff's second amended complaint pursuant to
Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). [Docket. No. 22, at 1-2]. On September
29, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment.
[Docket. No. 23]. On October 8, 2015, Plaintiff filed a
motion for discovery. [Docket No. 26].
November 5, 2015, the Court dismissed Plaintiff's motion
for summary judgment as procedurally and substantively
deficient. [Docket. No. 32]. On November 10, 2015, Plaintiff
filed a document which the Court construed as a supplement to
Plaintiff's previously filed pleadings and instructed
Defendants that they could file supplemental briefing in
support of their motion to dismiss. [Docket. Nos. 33, 35].
December 21, 2015, the Court held an in person status
conference and Plaintiff sent the Court a letter asking that
her entire case be dismissed. [Docket Nos. 46-47]. The Court,
therefore, dismissed the case without prejudice on December
23, 2015. [Docket. No. 47].
sent the Court several letters regarding the status of the
case over the next year and several months [Docket. Nos.
48-52]. On April 10, 2017, the Court directed the Defendants
to respond to Plaintiff's letters as a motion for relief
under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60. [Docket. No. 53]. The Defendants
complied with the Court's Order on May 1, 2017. [Docket.
31, 2017, the Court held oral argument on Plaintiff's
letters seeking re-instatement of the case and a status
conference. [Docket. Nos. 69-70].
1, 2017, the Court entered an Order granting Plaintiff relief
from the dismissal of her case pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60.
The Court directed Plaintiff to file a one-page pleading
setting forth her claims in this case as well as the specific
facts that support those claims. The Court also denied the
Defendants' pending motion to dismiss in lieu of answer
without prejudice as moot given the anticipated filing of an
amended pleading by Plaintiff. [Docket. No. 72].
5, 2017, Plaintiff filed an amended pleading pursuant to the
Court's June 1, 2017 Order. [Docket. No. 73]. The
pleading is docketed as Docket No. 73, although the Court